The JT Money, The Steelers and The Zebras

[RavensMania]

Lets face it, maybe we underrated CJ Mosley as a play caller and player. I know I did.

many people did. I know I didn't at all. He was a huge reason why this defense worked. That being said, I didn't want to resign him for his current contract. No way.

 

[ravenslord]

I’ll have to say I was not a fan of the offensive play calling . It seemed like the Steelers knew every time we were gonna run to the right . No innovativeness .

How bout a screen against a hard rushing Pitt D , back them off a little .

Disappointed in Roman

 

[balfan23]

But here's the thing... most of the "bad calls" that went against us were reviewed. So, at least in the opinion of myself and others, not only did the on-field refs get it wrong, but the replay officials in a different State got it wrong.

The reviewed the non-call PI that resulted in the INT. They didn't find enough there to reverse (which I find difficult to believe). They reviewed the catch/fumble out of bounds, and didn't find enough to overturn. They reviewed the interception that hit the ground, and didn't find enough to overturn.

I can't really blame Walt Anderson's crew for that. I can blame them for some of the other bad calls (the roughing call on Lamar was laughably bad), but the material calls that went against the Ravens were all reviewed by the league office.

And I would be absolutely shocked to hear the league office come back a few days later and say "yeah, we got a call that we reviewed in real time wrong". That's just never going to happen in my eyes.

At least with the stupid PI rules they put in place, everybody gets it now. They're not going to change that all barely ever. They put the rule in place to cover their own ass from the embarrassment of the NFC title game, but 99.99% of those calls are going to go with the call on the field. That's why when fans clamor for the review of subjective calls, they don't know what they're doing. This is what you get. The review of something subjective makes it... subjective. The NFL doesn't want to be in the business of changing subjectivity.

I guess I get confused with which calls go to NY and which calls the ref goes under the hood. I thought it was for all challenge flags thrown by coaches were reviewed on the field, but perhaps that is not correct. IMO all reviews should go to a 3rd party and not be handled by officials on the field. There is a natural bias for the refs on the field to justify the call they made.

I agree 100% on the PI - that they should leave the call on the field to stand as 99.99% of the time, because IMO the fact that they let 1 abysmal call dictate that we now have to have the lengthy game stoppages for no reason since they are never going to overturn. Any coach that throws the red flag on PI is wasting a challenge.

Anyway, the fact remains that whenever I see that ass clown Anderson on our game I cringe. I always feel like the games his crew calls are heavy handed and inconsistent.

 

[allblackraven]

@JoeyFlex5

 

[RavensMania]

I guess I get confused with which calls go to NY and which calls the ref goes under the hood. I thought it was for all challenge flags thrown by coaches were reviewed on the field, but perhaps that is not correct. IMO all reviews should go to a 3rd party and not be handled by officials on the field. There is a natural bias for the refs on the field to justify the call they made.

I agree 100% on the PI - that they should leave the call on the field to stand as 99.99% of the time, because IMO the fact that they let 1 abysmal call dictate that we now have to have the lengthy game stoppages for no reason since they are never going to overturn. Any coach that throws the red flag on PI is wasting a challenge.

Anyway, the fact remains that whenever I see that ass clown Anderson on our game I cringe. I always feel like the games his crew calls are heavy handed and inconsistent.

In replay, the Ref on the field may be under the hood, but he has New York in his ear.

 

[RavensMania]

@JoeyFlex5

View attachment 1771

should have exchanged them in Miami so he wouldn't have the Steeler jersey.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I guess I get confused with which calls go to NY and which calls the ref goes under the hood. I thought it was for all challenge flags thrown by coaches were reviewed on the field, but perhaps that is not correct. IMO all reviews should go to a 3rd party and not be handled by officials on the field. There is a natural bias for the refs on the field to justify the call they made.

I agree 100% on the PI - that they should leave the call on the field to stand as 99.99% of the time, because IMO the fact that they let 1 abysmal call dictate that we now have to have the lengthy game stoppages for no reason since they are never going to overturn. Any coach that throws the red flag on PI is wasting a challenge.

Anyway, the fact remains that whenever I see that ass clown Anderson on our game I cringe. I always feel like the games his crew calls are heavy handed and inconsistent.

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that 100% of reviews involve the on-field official going under the hood. The difference in this case is that scoring plays or turnovers are "automatically" reviewed by the league office. If they deem there's something "worth looking at", they flag the on-field official and he goes under the hood.

So on the INT that involved would looked to me to be pass interference, the league office looked at the play and didn't feel it warranted calling the on-field ref to review it.

On the second INT, which looked to me like the ground aided the catch, that one WAS flagged by the league office, and the ref went under the hood to review. No challenge flag... that's an automatic review.

On the catch/fumble out of bounds, that was challenged by Harbaugh I believe, so that's a under the hood review.

I'm pretty sure this is correct, because I don't recall an instance where the NY review team overturned a call on the field without the head official being in the booth to review. The NY teams job is to flag turnover/scoring plays for review, if it warrants a review, and then assist the on-field ref with the videos and rule discussions.

My problem with the first non-call for the PI was that the league office didn't even feel like it was worth it for the on-field ref to take a look. I think that's a mistake.

 

[Ice Bowl]

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that 100% of reviews involve the on-field official going under the hood. The difference in this case is that scoring plays or turnovers are "automatically" reviewed by the league office. If they deem there's something "worth looking at", they flag the on-field official and he goes under the hood.

So on the INT that involved would looked to me to be pass interference, the league office looked at the play and didn't feel it warranted calling the on-field ref to review it.

On the second INT, which looked to me like the ground aided the catch, that one WAS flagged by the league office, and the ref went under the hood to review. No challenge flag... that's an automatic review.

On the catch/fumble out of bounds, that was challenged by Harbaugh I believe, so that's a under the hood review.

I'm pretty sure this is correct, because I don't recall an instance where the NY review team overturned a call on the field without the head official being in the booth to review. The NY teams job is to flag turnover/scoring plays for review, if it warrants a review, and then assist the on-field ref with the videos and rule discussions.

My problem with the first non-call for the PI was that the league office didn't even feel like it was worth it for the on-field ref to take a look. I think that's a mistake.

Happy you guys won despite of the bad officiating.

 

[rossihunter2]

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that 100% of reviews involve the on-field official going under the hood. The difference in this case is that scoring plays or turnovers are "automatically" reviewed by the league office. If they deem there's something "worth looking at", they flag the on-field official and he goes under the hood.

So on the INT that involved would looked to me to be pass interference, the league office looked at the play and didn't feel it warranted calling the on-field ref to review it.

On the second INT, which looked to me like the ground aided the catch, that one WAS flagged by the league office, and the ref went under the hood to review. No challenge flag... that's an automatic review.

On the catch/fumble out of bounds, that was challenged by Harbaugh I believe, so that's a under the hood review.

I'm pretty sure this is correct, because I don't recall an instance where the NY review team overturned a call on the field without the head official being in the booth to review. The NY teams job is to flag turnover/scoring plays for review, if it warrants a review, and then assist the on-field ref with the videos and rule discussions.

My problem with the first non-call for the PI was that the league office didn't even feel like it was worth it for the on-field ref to take a look. I think that's a mistake.

all reviews since the last 2 seasons (maybe 3) have had centralised reviewing - everything is done via new york - even if the ref goes under the hood the review itself is being dictated by the league office and al riverron and his team who help guide the referee through the review - im assuming theres an allowance for discussion etc. but ultimately its new york making the decision and not the on-field crew

i think the idea is that it should create consistency in terms of replay if its all done from new york but without the transparency of live mics with the officials talking it through its hard to know what's said

i think rugby has the best replay model in terms of clarity, transparency etc. where the ref and the video official are mic'd up and talk to each other using the screens on the stadium and you can hear what they are saying the whole way through - improves transparency and makes it much more understandable as to why a particular decision has been taken - the more you can hear of the referees when they are actually refereeing (rather than just explaining a penalty or review outcome) the more respect you'll see from players and fans

 

[JoeyFlex5]

@JoeyFlex5

View attachment 1771

Is this a thing now or something? Lmao

 

[allblackraven]

Is this a thing now or something? Lmao

Yes.
I remember your disdain from preseason.

 

[balfan23]

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that 100% of reviews involve the on-field official going under the hood. The difference in this case is that scoring plays or turnovers are "automatically" reviewed by the league office. If they deem there's something "worth looking at", they flag the on-field official and he goes under the hood.

So on the INT that involved would looked to me to be pass interference, the league office looked at the play and didn't feel it warranted calling the on-field ref to review it.

On the second INT, which looked to me like the ground aided the catch, that one WAS flagged by the league office, and the ref went under the hood to review. No challenge flag... that's an automatic review.

On the catch/fumble out of bounds, that was challenged by Harbaugh I believe, so that's a under the hood review.

I'm pretty sure this is correct, because I don't recall an instance where the NY review team overturned a call on the field without the head official being in the booth to review. The NY teams job is to flag turnover/scoring plays for review, if it warrants a review, and then assist the on-field ref with the videos and rule discussions.

My problem with the first non-call for the PI was that the league office didn't even feel like it was worth it for the on-field ref to take a look. I think that's a mistake.

That makes sense, but I felt like we ended up needing to use the challenge flag on the "interception" where the point of the ball was buried into the ground and the defenders hand was not underneath it ... even though it should be automatically reviewed. I'm trying to remember where we burned our 2 challenges - I know one was the incomplete pass that was deemed a catch and fumble out of bounds.

Do you remember where our other challenge was?

 

[RavensMania]

all reviews since the last 2 seasons (maybe 3) have had centralised reviewing - everything is done via new york - even if the ref goes under the hood the review itself is being dictated by the league office and al riverron and his team who help guide the referee through the review - im assuming theres an allowance for discussion etc. but ultimately its new york making the decision and not the on-field crew

i think the idea is that it should create consistency in terms of replay if its all done from new york but without the transparency of live mics with the officials talking it through its hard to know what's said

i think rugby has the best replay model in terms of clarity, transparency etc. where the ref and the video official are mic'd up and talk to each other using the screens on the stadium and you can hear what they are saying the whole way through - improves transparency and makes it much more understandable as to why a particular decision has been taken - the more you can hear of the referees when they are actually refereeing (rather than just explaining a penalty or review outcome) the more respect you'll see from players and fans

yes, all reviews have NY on the refs ear.

 

[rossihunter2]

That makes sense, but I felt like we ended up needing to use the challenge flag on the "interception" where the point of the ball was buried into the ground and the defenders hand was not underneath it ... even though it should be automatically reviewed. I'm trying to remember where we burned our 2 challenges - I know one was the incomplete pass that was deemed a catch and fumble out of bounds.

Do you remember where our other challenge was?

the other one was just after the 1st lamar INT where he challenged a fumble - whoever told him to challenge that was an idiot - not only was it not a fumble it was also pretty conclusively not a fumble

 

[balfan23]

the other one was just after the 1st lamar INT where he challenged a fumble - whoever told him to challenge that was an idiot - not only was it not a fumble it was also pretty conclusively not a fumble

Oh - that's right. How could I forget? Perhaps because it was such a ridiculous challenge that I decided to bury it in my subconscious.

 

[RL52TheGreatest]

I’ll have to say I was not a fan of the offensive play calling . It seemed like the Steelers knew every time we were gonna run to the right . No innovativeness .

How bout a screen against a hard rushing Pitt D , back them off a little .

Disappointed in Roman

I feel like our offense almost never runs screens going back to the Flacco era. It could really come in handy with the middle of our OL getting obliterated on a consistent basis and with a speedy back out there like Justice Hill.

The playcalling has seemed very vanilla and predictable the past 2 games. Not sure what's going on, but they have the Bengals game to work it out before 2 tough games against the Seahawks and Pats.

 

[rmcjacket23]

That makes sense, but I felt like we ended up needing to use the challenge flag on the "interception" where the point of the ball was buried into the ground and the defenders hand was not underneath it ... even though it should be automatically reviewed. I'm trying to remember where we burned our 2 challenges - I know one was the incomplete pass that was deemed a catch and fumble out of bounds.

Do you remember where our other challenge was?

John can't challenge that play. It was ruled an INT on the field, meaning its automatically reviewed as a turnover. There's no point in throwing the flag.

Technically speaking, I know there is an actual penalty, on coaches, who throw challenge flags in situations that aren't challenge-able. I don't think that would occur here, but John throwing the flag is moot.

 

[RavensMania]

the other one was just after the 1st lamar INT where he challenged a fumble - whoever told him to challenge that was an idiot - not only was it not a fumble it was also pretty conclusively not a fumble

sometimes I wonder why we challenge certain plays. We are supposed to have someone in the booth.

 

[cdp]

Just watched Tomlin's presser. Haha he was so pissed about Tucker and our kickoff coverage. I like how acknowledged Tucker's greatness and didn't even bother to ice him.

 

[RavensMania]

Just watched Tomlin's presser. Haha he was so pissed about Tucker and our kickoff coverage. I like how acknowledged Tucker's greatness and didn't even bother to ice him.

link